VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation

Background

VLSI filed motions seeking to exclude damages opinions and technical opinions from Intel’s experts. It also filed administrative motions asking the court to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed: ECF No. 542, concerning the damages motion; ECF No. 546, concerning the technical motion; and ECF No. 550, correcting ECF No. 546.

Intel submitted declarations and exhibits supporting the sealing requests. NXP Semiconductors USA, Inc., NXP Semiconductors B.V., and Freescale Semiconductor Inc. also submitted a declaration supporting the request concerning the damages motion. Although VLSI did not name NXP in ECF No. 542, the court considered NXP’s declaration.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. Because the records at issue were connected to motions concerning patent infringement, patent validity, damages, and expert opinions, they were more than tangentially related to the case’s merits. The parties therefore had to show compelling reasons for sealing the information. They also had to make a particularized showing of specific harm from disclosure and narrowly tailor the proposed redactions.

Intel’s requested redactions concerning the damages motion

The court granted Intel’s requests to seal highlighted portions of VLSI’s memorandum and selected exhibits. The sealed material included:

- Licensing information, including payment terms, the scope of license agreements, and other licensing terms; - Names of counterparties to Intel’s agreements and information about patents covered by those agreements; - Technical information about the design and operation of accused features in Intel’s products; - Information about Intel’s sales and financial decisions, including pricing strategy, pricing criteria, revenue, profits, costs, and sales volume; and - Intel’s licensing negotiation strategy.

The materials included excerpts from deposition testimony and expert reports by Patrick Fay, Lauren R. Kindler, M. Ray Perryman, and Ryan Sullivan. The court found compelling reasons to seal the specified portions and found Intel’s requests narrowly tailored.

NXP’s requested redactions concerning the damages motion

The court granted NXP’s requests to seal selected blue-boxed portions of excerpts from Lauren Kindler’s and M. Ray Perryman’s expert reports. The court found that the material described confidential patent agreements, intellectual-property licensing and monetization practices, and confidential testimony from current and former NXP and Freescale employees about intellectual-property practices.

Intel’s requested redactions concerning the technical motion

The court granted Intel’s requests to seal highlighted portions of VLSI’s motion to strike portions of Intel’s technical expert reports and excerpts from Patrick Fay’s expert reports. The material contained confidential information about the design, operation, and manufacturing processes of accused product features and certain Intel product prior art.

Disposition

The court ordered that VLSI’s administrative motion at ECF No. 542 was GRANTED. It also ordered that VLSI’s administrative motion at ECF No. 546, as corrected by ECF No. 550, was GRANTED. This order addressed sealing requests; it did not decide VLSI’s motions to exclude the experts’ opinions or the underlying patent dispute.